[Updated at 8:42 p.m. ET] The North Carolina House voted Monday to put on the 2012 ballot a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage in the state, a spokesman for the House speaker said.

The bill, which the House approved 76-41, now goes to the Senate. Three-fifths of the House's 120 members - 72 - were required for the bill to pass.

If the measure passes in the entire Legislature and is approved by voters during the primary in May, North Carolina would become the final state in the Southeast to add a constitutional amendment regarding same-sex marriage.

"This amendment pushes the power away from us and pushes the decision to the people of North Carolina," state Rep. Dale Folwell, a Republican from Winston-Salem and the speaker pro tem, said.

Proponents of the measure said they felt it was important that the amendment be added so that it would protect the state's policy on gay marriage. North Carolina currently has a ban on same-sex marriage, but legislators are seeking to protect that ban by chiseling it into their constitution.

The bill came to the House floor Monday after a House committee passed it by a voice vote earlier in the day. Many Democrats who opposed the measure argued that Republicans, who are in the majority in the Legislature for the first time in 140 years, were trying to push the amendment through quickly without allowing for a real debate or public comment. Republicans argued that the content of the proposed amendment has long been known, even if the specific wording was not.

During debate on the House floor, Rep. Susan Fisher, a Democrat from Asheville, questioned why legislators were asking for such swift movement on the issue.

"I think it's somewhat ironic that we would be asked to debate or have this bill in front of us for immediate consideration," she said. "I don't think you ever consider an amendment to the state constitution immediately, yet here we are."

Jordan Shaw, communications director for North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis, told CNN that he did not believe there was a requirement to have a public debate on the issue.

"But I would point out the very nature of this measure would be for the people to vote on it," he said. "It is hard to have a more democratic process than to put it up to the voters."

The amendment would add the following language to the constitution:

"Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."

Fisher argued that regardless of the semantics and arguments about the proposed amendment, she felt there were large problems with it overall.

"What happens with this amendment is once again we seek to marginalize a group of individuals who only want equality and the same basic rights afforded to every citizen of this state," she said.

She questioned why some legislators insist on repeating what she described as bad lessons from their state's history.

"I remember a recent session where we went to great lengths, and necessary ones I believe, to issue an apology to African-American citizens for injustices," she said. "What I think is about to happen here is another instance where in the not-too- distant future we will be apologizing again for unfair and harmful discriminatory practices."

Fisher urged her colleagues to make North Carolina "the first of the Southern states to appropriately say, 'No this goes too far."

"Show the compassion and the ability to listen that was asked of us earlier today in our opening prayer and say no to this horrible step backward for North Carolina," she said.

Folwell, the speaker pro tem, argued the push for the bill was not about politics or opinions but about the power of the people.

"We're asking something currently in the statute book and allowing (North Carolina voters) to put it in (the state's constitution)."

Folwell argued that the amendment is not about defining relationships or even discussing what qualifies as a relationship.

"This vote today is about the relationship you have with the people who put you here," he said.

Folwell said the vote comes down to simply allowing the people to have control of their own constitution.

"Today, history is going to talk about the strength, the strength of this chamber, to realize that some decisions are simply bigger than we are and they belong to the people of North Carolina," he said.

After the measure passed a House committee earlier Monday, Democrats argued Republicans were sneakily trying to ram the bill through the Legislature.

North Carolina Rep. Joe Hackney, a Democrat, said he only received a copy of the bill right before the committee meeting. The bill has words that "carry great meaning," he said, yet there has been no debate or opportunity for public comment.

"This is no way to conduct constitutional business for the state of North Carolina," he said, saying such a serious issue deserved a fair hearing.

"It is not worthy of this Legislature," he said of the bill in its current form.

House Majority Leader Rep. Paul Stam, a Republican, told committee members he felt it was imperative they move to adopt the amendment.

"Things have changed in Iowa, California, New York, D.C. and Massachusetts," Stam said. "We have now states with significant populations that are allowing same-sex marriages to be legitimized and entered into. The question then becomes, what happens when they come to North Carolina seeking divorce or equitable distribution?"

North Carolina Rep. Paul Luebke, a Democrat, said while he understood that Republicans want to move on the issue, he felt it was "reprehensible," given such a high level of public interest, that the public would not have the chance to comment.

"Whether you (are) for this amendment or against it, it is a travesty we are not debating the measure" properly, Luebke said.

Luebke added that by pushing the proposed amendment along without the right process, the Legislature was wrongly moving to "specifically prohibit one group of citizens" without letting them have a say.

Calling it a step backward for the state, Luebke said if nothing else, debate should be considered because of the impact the move could have on the economy. He referred to major corporations that were founded by people from North Carolina who opposed the bill, including Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, who wrote an open letter about his concerns regarding the bill.

soundoff(756 Responses)

mightyfudge

the biggest mistake this country ever made was winning the civil war. we should have let all those Bronze Age southerners go 150 years ago.... sigh. actually amazed that the rest of the country has acheived so much despite dragging their dead weight through a century and a half of progress...

Good for NC. At least some people have sanity to deal with this issue. To all Bible haters, nature teaches us a lot. Even animals know better than us. They know which is our front and which is our back. To all gender confused friends, please don't label us backwards because we want to do something right.

To all you people preaching from the Bible as your guide, YOU do not know the Bible at all...you were taught in church by prejudiced, unprincipaled, un-Christian leaders...Jesus never condemned anyone and preached to judge yourself before you judge others and HE never threw the first stone...you are the same hipocrits that cursified Jesus over 2000 years ago. Take a look into your own soul, your own life and Judge yourself before casting that first stone...I would like someone and I would put this out there to the Pope, to show me in the Bible where one sin is worse than another...I never saw a list by the number....I am totally sure if I go to Hell many of you will be there or will be joining me as well. Supposed you died today and St Peter met you at the Golden Gate and pulled out his book of your life and said: Do you remember when Jesus said not to judge others....that is God's job?

Tad, you seem to be an unfortunate lost soul. I believe the only way to truely know our god, and bible is to read it for yourself because there are so many fake prophecies. Standing up for what is right, protecting our families is nothing near judging people. and as for calling gay a sin that is calling a duck a duck,... and no sin is greater than another, and only a very select few will make it into heaven... very true

If this passes I will be sure to vote in November and vote yes to the ban.
To all of you so called guys (I'll use that word so my comment won't get deleted) I have news for you this will pass at the polls.

This is just a blatantly transparent ploy by Republicans to draw all the nutty religious bigots out to the polls. Unfortunately, it will probably work. I expect to see a lot of this going on all over the country. As usual, the Republicans have no idea how to solve real problems so they just play to people's fears in order to get elected.

LOL, they are trying to put the measure to a vote on the same day as the Republican primary in NC. This couldn't be more transparently partisan and aimed at increasing conservative turnout if they'd tried.

Those who believe they are aware of churches engaging in political activity in support of this amendment in violation of their 501(c)(3) tax exemption, please report the behavior using IRS Form 3949A. The form is available on the web and may be filed anonymously if you prefer.

No unfortunately NC's IQ can't be established until they openly vote their beliefs that marriage is for man and woman. Then they can get back to normal! As in BBQ's, fishing, fourwheelin, farmin, goin to church, lovin the life God gave them.. and generally keeping to themselves

Jesus' agenda: Feed the Hungry, Clothe the naked, Shelter the homeless, love your neighbor, you reap what you sow. Republican's agenda: Feed no one, Clothe no one, Shelter no one. Hate gays, people of other religions and atheists, hate immigrants; and everyone's out for themselves. I like Jesus' agenda better. The Republicans are not pro-christ, they are anti-christ; the Anti-Christ party.

So basically, this god who you pray to hates people. Nice god you have there. Have fun with that...I'm sure the invisible man in the sky will....do something about it...or something....
I love how people are so wrapped up in the "holiness" of marriage, when it's obvious they haven't a clue the true history of marriage. Marriage was all about ownership. The woman goes from her dad (who owned her) to her husband (who then took over the "property"). There was never anything "holy" or "romantic" about marriage in the past. I'm trying to figure out how two people committing to be true to each other forever could be "immoral".....

Where do you find the word hate? God does not hate sinners. God hates sin,. As for ownership i would not consider it that but i completely agree to obeying and supporting my husband, and he is the leader of our home. That is my personal choice, if you are gay that is your personal choice. Only you will be there on judgement day, not I nor dick and harry. But being gay is not normal, or prosperous. How can you argue that?

I live in NC and I was talking to one of my professors about this move. Her first response was that it would definitely hurt the NC economy a bit considering that the Research Triangle Park, which is often compared to Silicon Valley, is comprised of several progressive companies who have anti-discrimination policies. If some of their own employees feel uncomfortable transferring to a branch here, how big of a loss will this be to the state? It's one thing to not approve gay marriage, but it's certainly another thing to completely ban the prospect of it happening altogether. The state senate and congress have been unable to do this for over 100 years, considering it has always had a democratic majority, so I guess they are taking the chance to leave some kind of mark to receive more votes in the future and to turn the state that was actually becoming a bit more progressive by voting for Obama three years ago, back into ultra Conservatives once again.

About This Blog

This blog â€“ This Just In â€“ will no longer be updated. Looking for the freshest news from CNN? Go to our ever-popular CNN.com homepage on your desktop or your mobile device, and join the party at @cnnbrk, the world's most-followed account for news.